Stop Lying to Yourself

I just finished reading (well, listening to) Stefan Molyneux's On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion last night. While the author's style seems a little tedious at times, bordering on redundant, it may simply be because I am very often exposed to his work, and thus it feels like he's beating me over the head simply because that's what it takes for most people to truly grasp the shocking evils disguised as normalcy.

The theme of the book, though, made me think about this presidential election, which was a big pain in my ass. I started out with the Ron Paul crew, and following his defeat in the primaries, quickly grew accustomed to the futility of statism by listening to Molyneux's podcasts. Consequently, when the time came to vote on the President, I was a card-carrying Voluntaryist, and glad to be rid of the soul-crushing lesser-of-evils game.

The frustrating part was all the direct criticism I got from the people around me for not voting - some of my friends actually got angry at me. I never had a very compelling way to quickly argue my case. It's not easy for people like me to "make sense" to everyone in mainstream society, because even if they agree with me, I inevitably get stuck at how to implement my ideology, and they go back to voting for one of the members of the diverse selection of tyrants every election season.

It would be much easier if, as a reaction to injustices all over the world and particularly in the U.S., I became a socialist. Politicians LOVE socialists, whether they say so or not, and most socialists don't look outside the political realm to seek their end. By appealing to the sentiments of socialists, politicians gain control of sectors of various influence and wealth. Furthermore, like most individuals, socialists fail to see the gun in the room (the government), and go straight after the corporations, which are hardly innocent, but couldn't exercise the exploitation they now enjoy without the government as a lead blocker and a safety net.

Here's the thing. It's absolutely insane to think your vote matters, but to get mad at me for not using my vote is a new level of insanity. Let's be clear, though, even though this is a plain fact, I still get it. When I was a Ron Paul supporter I was extraordinarily pissed that more people didn't vote for him. Since then, though, I've been breaking down the absurd illusions that I've entertained for 20-some odd years.

Now, watching people carefully consider who to use their precious vote on is hilarious to me.

If you are like my friends and I, and are not part of any major union, your vote does not matter, and it certainly isn't a virtue or a responsibility, and here are some reasons why:

1. Statistically, clearly, it doesn't matter. Let's be serious, I don't think Swing Vote is ever going to become a reality.
2. Votes get lost, misread, miscounted, who knows, maybe even hacked nowadays.
   
3. Your voting operates under the assumption that the candidate is going to actually do what they say they are going to do (epic fail)
4. There are so many more bought-and-paid-for (so to speak) voters than any well-intentioned "vigilant" citizenry could hope to offset.
   
5. The whole affair hinges on the idea that (basically) whoever wins more votes than the other, is that the "people have spoken" and that's who they want in power. Clearly, everyone else is getting screwed over, because they're now going to be forced to comply with the decisions of the candidate elected.
   
6. The system implies that having a president is a good/necessary thing. This is especially pertinent in that the role of a president is now VERY different than it used to be
   
7. The president can't simply undo all of the evils of a previous administration. Tyrant though he may be, he still doesn't have quite that much power...yet. If he did, he would be a dictator, and we'd be totally fucked. I'm actually not positive that we're not really damn close to this kind of situation.
   

You'd be better off using your time to write your congressperson. What a joke that is.

Anyways, I don't talk about this kind of stuff because I was just that upset by my critics. I bring it up and make a big deal out of it because it's this kind of delusion that perpetuates the sick fantasy of government. It's astounding, and it's all around us. Every new election cycle there's so much hope and resolution, and then we come to find it's the same old shit, but usually worse. Every government program enacted "with good intentions" creates a massive bureaucracy and unnecessary drag on taxpayers. Then when it fails, the answer is always the same: "There's not enough funding" or "not enough oversight," when the program was already funded in an unbelievably inefficient and exorbitant way, and layered in mind-numbing bureaucracy.

It's a joke. It's a fucking joke. But it's the least funny joke in the history of the world.

So go ahead and vote, but do yourself a favor and stop thinking that it's going to make a positive difference, and for god's sake don't come after me thinking I'm going the wrong direction just because the rest of you have been marching off a cliff for centuries.

Why I'm a Voluntaryist, Part I

I've been looking forward to this post for a while. I've named it "Part I," but I don't in reality know if there will be other parts. I would rather do it this way though, instead of covertly editing my post later on.

I am going to number each of my points to make them slightly more digestable, but first, an explanation of Voluntaryism:

First of all, anything that I will be writing is explained better tenfold by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.com. Second, if you'd like to get a head start, here is the Wikipedia entry for Voluntaryism.

Voluntaryism is an ideological viewpoint that essentially rejects all coercive force. Anything that is not achieved by voluntary means is most definitely NOT justified by the end. Contrary to mainstream ideologies, Voluntaryism is deeply rooted in human nature, morality, and objectivity. It is synonymous with little-l libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, though both terms have been corrupted by misuse. Voluntaryism necessarily denies the justifications for the state, otherwise known as the government.

That should be good for now - onward!


1. A Voluntaryist system is tolerant of all ideologies, so long as they don't involve coercion.

I feel that one of the simplest ways to explain my position is by saying this: I know what's good for me, I don't know what's good for you. Thus it's important to have the freedom and capacity to pursue curiosity, and a society that rewards responsibility, ambition and cooperation.

If you are a socialist or a communist, you should rejoice if you find yourself in such a society. Feel free to set up your voluntary community of individuals and get your whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing going on. But don't think about trying to use force to achieve your goals - because not only is it a crime, but it disproves the validity of your ideology for the millionth time and your own morality as a proponent. Fortunately, the rest of the voluntaryist society will be waiting, with ample opportunity for you to make a good living.

2. There's nothing that governments can do that private industry can't do better, except for the things that shouldn't be done in the first place.

This is not only one of the most important arguments for voluntaryism, but it is also one of the most loaded. It is especially significant because without the state, there is no central banking (and inevitably fiat currency), and without central banking, expensive, devastating, exploitative, opportunistic military campaigns are impossible. Of course, even if such excursions could be funded without government and central banking, private defense companies and the like wouldn't engage in them because of a necessary transparency that they possess and the government (especially the CIA) does not. Even if that weren't the case, it is still much more costly to attempt to steal resources from the developing world than it is to employ people and trade instead, if you can't print your own money.

3. People are required to act responsibly, governments aren't.

If the FDA aaaaaccidentally allows some pain medicine contaminated with HIV circulate among the general populace, what happens? A slap on the wrist, some evasive posturing from official spokespersons, a rotation of leadership? Say Hope Steffie calls the police for help one night and is forcibly strip-searched by six or more cops, all the while pleading for them to stop? Nearly two-hundred people have died from taser use across the United States, and yet cops still go straight for the taser if they have trouble removing a student who asked 'the wrong question' from an auditorium. Thousands of atrocities are committed in senseless wars by people following orders or simply by acting on the dehumanized new shell that military training has equipped them with. Government doesn't have accountability. It's not set up to. Every time something goes wrong, if anything is done, some figurehead is swapped out for a different sociopath, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.

4. Monopolies of force are inherently abusive.

Some argue that power corrupts, I argue that the power structure is already corrupt, and the evils that emerge are simply implicit in its nature. There is no reasonable justification of a monopoly of power like the state and it's forces. If people are mostly bad, a state cannot exist, because it would be populated with all of said bad people who will use this unrivaled power to their own selfish ends. Of course, if people are mostly good, a state simply does not need to exist. Competition is a very powerful tool of balance in performance and accountability, and voluntary association ensures the best quality product at the best possible price.


5. The ideology is founded on morality and empirical evidence of human nature.

For this one, Stefan Molyneux does the best work by far of explaining. The morality part is pretty obvious. Violence and theft are immoral. These are counter-productive to society and damaging to individuals, so obviously it is incorrect, and immoral to create a giant governing body that's existence is the utter reverse of these accepted moral truths. The human nature part is evident to me, but a little more tricky, perhaps.

Mainstream ideologies do not even address morality, they just skim the surface of trite bills and "hot button" topics like abortion. So, in order to illustrate my point, I'll compare two radical ideologies.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the estranged marxist cousin of anarcho-capitalism or Voluntaryism. Both are "radical" "utopian" ideologies. Neither recognize the supposed superiority, and thus justification, of the state, but the two ideology necessitate very different views of human nature. Both seek to deconstruct the state as a first phase. However, anarcho-capitalism takes what is already evidenced by human nature (self-interest), general good nature, and structures society in a way that these can be manifested positively. Anarcho-syndicalism necessitates an additional phase in not only seeking to alter the structure of society, but also seeking to alter human nature. The way I think about it is that anarcho-capitalism takes reality and thinks of the best way to modify it, while anarcho-capitalism takes a fantasy and thinks of a way to make it reality.

Self-interest often gets a bad rap because of the power-disparities we have created for ourselves through government. In and of itself it is a neutral human-quality, or rather it can be either good or bad. The key is not legitimizing a system where self-interest can be unapologetically abused. When you give someone power, they use it to their advantage. Duh. If anyone thinks that business can be truly exploitative without a little mutual backscratching with the government, you have some reading to do. If you think business is exploitative simply because of the presence of a hierarchy, you have been misled by Marxist rhetoric.

6. It's practical

The practical arguments for voluntaryism have been around for a long time. I'm not going to address them all here because they have been explained many times by far more eloquent authors, even entering mainstream discourse from time to time, but are never heeded. Historically, the closer a society comes to the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, the realm of corporatism, statism, socialism, the more blatant and abhorrent the abuse of power. One needs only look at the most horrific events and despotic regimes of the past century. Not only are socialist and government approaches immoral, but they are terribly impractical. They don't work. In fact, they systematically make the situation worse. For example, right now we are trying to combat problems created by irresponsible lending and spending with irresponsible lending and spending. In trying to alleviate poverty the good ol' government way (throwing money at something), we've not only created disincentives to work, but we've increased debt for future generations by stealing from current ones. In the developing world, this kind of aid can actually create a kind of stagnation in which any local farmers cannot ever hope to compete with intermittently appearing free food.

7. The nit-picky details that people always get hung up on are virtually irrelevant

Since becoming a voluntaryist, I'm continually baffled by the unending and often creative questions that are posed to me as an indication that my ideology might not work. This is, of course, a very healthy practice, and I wish it were afforded for many psuedo-intellectual exercises that it is not. The part that baffles me is that such a violent, half-baked, self-contradictory ideology like Marxism is so socially acceptable and afforded so much benefit-of-the-doubt. Of course, I get it, having embraced moronic ideologies of my own in the past, notably neo-conservatism.

The thing is, though, at the end of the day, what is there to lose? Why be apprehensive to accept the ideology? Combine all of the random events that could happen - the tiny percentage of psychopaths, spontaneous deaths, complications involving road construction with private property, anything you can think of. Now put that on a scale beside the unbelievably violent atrocities you can barely stand to think of resulting from wars, oft-overlooked economic policies resulting in destruction of wealth and savings, sanctions preventing alleviation of sickness and hunger, institutionalized hate and persecution, endless police brutality, political and judicial corruption, incredibly counter-productive prisons and prisoners of victimless crimes such as walking across an imaginary line (Mexican immigrants). Don't forget the environment as well - I mean, they test A-bombs in the oceans for Christ's sake. The latter is going to be pinned to the ground on the scale 'o death 'n destruction. By a long shot. The voluntaryist society may be a little more spontaneous, but a system that rewards innovative thought, dynamic evolution and cooperation creates a better life for everyone. Societies that don't institutionalize violence and teach that it's right when you're wearing a blue costume or work in a white building will tend not to propagate more violence.

For the self-professed socialists, If you're so adamant about socialism, how can you afford a computer? I'm living the legal extent of my ideology, and I'm helping people too. Given the countless failures (and I am very generous to use that term) of socialist theory, how can you in good conscience even argue for it? The reign of Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao...all those assholes! How many more people have to die before you give it up, seriously?! And you still have the nerve to say that I'm not compassionate. Puke.

If you really hate corporations, the only way to get them on a leash is to cut off their government buddy-system. If you really want a fair life for all human beings, stop letting the government toy with their futures. Advocate programs that emphasize success, not lowest-common denominators. Be charitable, don't force others to be. because at the end of the day, any given person in the government doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing. And they sure as hell don't care about you.

A Brief Tirade on Degrees and Barriers to Entry

I was talking to a friend of mine today about college and the like, and I actually got a little worked up about something that I will now allow to spill onto the pages of my unsuspecting blog.

I've been told I can get long winded, so if you wanna get to the point, it's at the bottom in bold.

When I first started going to college as an industrial design major, I was 19 years-old, and I had figured out that in my 5-year program I would be 23 by the time I could graduate and become a fully-functional human being. It freaked me out a little, but I didn't sweat it because that's what I had to do. Now I'm 23, and what I didn't take into consideration is that by the time I actually graduate and become financially independent, with a job, I will be turning 24.

Now, this may not be a big deal to some, and I'm probably being a little too dramatic about it, but to someone who has never turned 24 before, it's a little weird.

So then I started to think about the fact that I will have spent almost 24 years in 'preparation.' 24 years! Populations in the past might have been fortunate enough to merely live this long. If I were one of many people who had to pay their entire tuition, I would have several more years of indentured servitude just to pay off the damn loans, either that or I just would not have been able to go into the program I did.

What pisses me off are the standards we've set up for ourselves. The degree is a pre-requisite, and not having it is just an opportunity for discrimination. The attitude is "show me the degree, and then we'll talk." Sometimes it doesn't even matter so much the grades you've recieved, as if potential employers just want to see that you threw a lot of money away to prove you are responsible (what?).

Seriously, the past two, if not three years of my own education have been a joke. I'm not only saying that because the work experience has has given me a different perspective, but simply because we haven't learned a god-damn thing, and if I were supposed to, it certainly didn't make any difference in the outcome of the class. When we return from internships and co-ops, we essentially are made to do the same thing, designing something as students for a real client, except now we're not getting paid for it. Returning to college from working is like going back to high school from college. It all seems so narrowly-scoped and petty.

The first two years? Yeah, totally worth it, virtually no complaints. The last two? Utter bullshit.

So what happened to these guys like Raymond Loewy who come over on a boat with change in their pockets and become one of the most (deservedly) famous designers in the world? Well, now we've got fifteen layers of bullshit and bureacracy built up (and not just in my profession), to where there's no precedent for getting by on sheer skill and hard work anymore. Not, of course, that companies can hire on sheer skill anyways. The experience gained and the pace of things learned at work is out of necessity, and GREATLY overshadows that which can be learned in school.

You might say, like my college (DAAP at University of Cincinnati) alludes to, that in structuring the industry like this, we're ensuring the best, brightest, and most capable become the designers of tomorrow. If I were a mindless leftist drone, I would piss my pants and just start shouting about unfairness. Since I'm not though, I'm going to reasonably suggest why this really is unfair bullshit.

It's like opening a business. Do massive taxes, restrictive zoning laws and convoluted rules and regulations ensure better businesses? I would argue that it ensures more mediocre businesses. For the most part, anyone really willing to make a risk has to already be wealthy enough to be able to fail, which means they won't necessarily work as hard, and all the guys with great ideas that can't scale the giant barriers to entry are totally screwed. Just like the structure of many other instututions of society, risk, ingenuity, passion and conviction take a back seat to bureacratic nonsense. Likewise, giant tuition fees, compulsory dorm residence, stubborn professors, and in some schools an inability to practice in the profession until graduation, screws over all the people who could be great designers, but will never get the chance because the professor is always right, apprenticeship is dead, and working hard toward such a goal is at odds with making enough money to eat.

I'm not trying to say that I'm one of the people with potential getting screwed, I'm saying I think it's bullshit and it makes me sad that if someone thinks they can work hard to break into the industry without a degree, they're going to get laughed out of their next interview. But then, what do I know.